Journalism: The invisible war for revealing truth

This is not a war over territory like Ukraine and Russia, nor is it a military exercise like blocking ships at sea. This fight is over words, truth, and preserving the dignity of an ancient profession. Going against billions of dollars in corporate investment, this struggle is actually about saving the core foundation and tradition of journalism. 

This is not a story of falling into pessimism or despair. Regardless of distance—country or continent—this crisis belongs to everyone. There is no scope to separate it as belonging to the East or the West.

There may be disagreement with my realisation; it can be dismissed through logic and debate. But it is difficult to deny the truth that shines in its own glory like the Polaris. 

Not too long ago, on June 24, the UK Government's Department for Culture, Media and Sport published a report. It is being called a major assessment of journalists' safety in the country's history. The research organisation 'Alma Economics' in London prepared the report by interviewing 586 journalists. The report, titled 'UK Journalist Safety Research 2026', stated that due to concerns over personal safety, journalists are resorting to self-censorship when reporting on far-right protests, the Trump administration, and transgender issues. They are avoiding many things and making changes in how they present news.

I have no doubt or suspicion about this research, but I do have a realisation. As public trust in legacy media or traditional media declines across the globe, the space for open discussion in the public sphere is shrinking. No matter how loudly we shout 'Free Press', this is the reality in modern journalism—unpleasant as it may be. 

Professional experience shows that no red notice hangs in the newsroom. Nor are there strict restrictions or legal bans on publishing every piece of news. Yet a barrier is felt when publishing certain news. It is an invisible barrier. The barrier influences thoughts. Such a barrier alters content. Desire must then be presented in a trimmed-down form. One has to suppress oneself from within. The surprising thing is that journalists in a country like Britain are now talking about such self-censorship, where the institutional history of journalism is over 400 years old. Is that all? Under such circumstances, an indifferent role is expected from journalists. Whether we admit it or not, that culture is being formed—and has been formed—in the newsrooms.

An event occurred in the second week of last June. A fairly large riot broke out in Northern Ireland over anti-immigration protests. While covering the event, several journalists were harassed by masked individuals. Video footage of one journalist was even circulated in a Facebook Group. Afterwards, crowds formed groups and took to the streets to track him down.

This reality is not unique in Northern Ireland; in many Western countries, there is now’reluctance’ among journalists regarding the anti-immigration demonstrations of the far-right. The reason is that they do not want to become targets. They are concerned about the risks of being physically present at anti-immigration rallies and the kind of reactions that follow the publication of news. The same thing is happening regarding anti-tariff demonstrations in the United States.

There is another scenario of the crisis in today's journalism. That crisis revolves around small and large scale of social networks, which are being considered as alternative platforms for journalism. However, the fact is that social media is one of the main 'laboratories' for producing false information, fake news, or misinformation. A lie that begins with a single post gets nourished through reposts, engagement, algorithmic boosts, or sometimes through mainstream media's 'reporting on the report.' However, that is not to say that lies are not produced anywhere outside of this.

The reality is that entities like Meta Platforms, X Corp, or Tencent seem to have little 'headache' about these matters. Rather, they are enthusiastic about investing billions of dollars by starting 'fact-checking services.' There is business in that. On the other hand, laws banning social media have to be passed to enjoy the childhood of the youngsters. And, we see its implementation in Australia, France, Canada, and Austria.

To understand the challenge of mainstream journalism, I want to cite another event. On July 23, Britain's 182-year-old legacy media 'The Economist' published an interview with American trillionaire Elon Musk. The interview was taken by Editor-in-Chief Zanny Minton Beddoes, who believes in economic liberalism and speaks of freedom of speech. Their conversation was frankly, vivid, praiseworthy. But after the end of the programme, what X Corp (formerly Twitter) owner Elon Musk did was completely exceptional (many called it 'obnoxious arrogance').

In the interview, there were questions like—Did cutting the budget of the US aid agency USAID cause unwanted deaths in developing countries? Are you a racist or an Islamophobe? It is only natural that the respondent would be embarrassed by such questions. Therefore, an 'on-camera' debate between Musk and Zanny was inevitable. The atmosphere of the show changed even more when The Economist editor asked—'Do you realise that people hate you?' In reply, Musk's logic was, 'Since I have crores of followers on X, I am definitely popular.' Rather, he commented that people hate news media like The Economist even more.

The Guardian columnist Jane Martinson believes that this conversation is not just the personal beliefs of two people, but also exposes the fragile state of the information flow system. Giving a metaphorical example, she said, 'If the interview were an expedition of a Greek epic, The Economist editor was trying to return to the address of truth and safety. Elon Musk was like an angry sea god, who even after the debate ended was unleashing terrible storms and monsters all around.' (The Guardian, August 1, 2026).

The incident did not end here. When The Economist editor shared the link on X, Musk reposted it. In the caption he wrote—'Bizarre interview with Zanny'. That was it, immediately toxic outbursts against the news media started. Musk also attacked legacy media as a 'nightmarish mirror devoid of reality'. Jane Martinson believes that the attitude within Elon Musk to deny the truth is what made his interview important. But asking tough questions to the powerful and continuing the search for truth is real journalism; even if it shows negative reactions.

It is also truth that journalism has always followed or is following principles and ethics. Many news outlets have faced questions about neutrality due to political closeness. Assuming that Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton would win in the 2016 US election, 'Newsweek' went ahead and printed a special cover titled 'Madam President'. But after Donald Trump won, all copies had to be hurriedly withdrawn from the market. In the history of journalism, it was a gross mistake; a glaring example of ethical lapse.

However, the topic of my discussion is not the error of journalism, but rather an attempt to realise the hard adversities that the profession is facing. When information floats like floodwaters on social platforms with crores of followers and various confusions get 'patronage', then the responsibility of bringing out the truth falls upon the mainstream media. But whether due to fear or opportunism—if self-censorship becomes a habit, a natural issue, the right of ordinary people to know the truth will be lost forever. Then there will be no investigation; journalism will merely turn into an exercise of choosing some risk-free safe words! Therefore, no matter how tough the days ahead are, truth must be revealed.

Goutam Mondal: In-charge of Online, Daily Samakal

email: gmondal@hotmail.com